Not at all. I reject that God looked upon His Son as if He were sin (evil, disobedient, unrighteous and unholy). We disagree. I have Scripture. You have your tradition.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Retribultion Theology
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
Scriptures states to us that He who knew no sin became sin for us, and bore our sins and endured the wrath of God!
Scripture please. Again you mix truth and tradition (Jesus did bear our sin by becoming sin for us....at least that part is in the Bible).
What is your authority for believing the last part? It's not Scripture as evidenced by your inability to provide evidence.
Jesus took upon Himself my sin debt and its sin penalty, so however God would judge me he got judged!
You accuse me of following traditions sent forth by calvin, yet you parrot those of Wright!
Then you are mistaking. I have relied on Scripture but my view has been influenced by both Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards. On this topic I have studied the Anabaptist movement and the Radical Reformation (who, BTW, also rejected PSA). I disagree, however with contemporary Mennonite theology (non-violent Atonement) because they make the same error you are making. All I've read of Wright on this topic is what has been presented here.
You just don't get it. You think it an insult to say I follow Wright but instead it just makes you a fool. I've never studied the man, nor have I adopted his positions. I provided a passage of Scripture you disagree with and you act as if I were quoting N.T. Wright.
I am willing to provide Scripture for my view. I've offered over and over again. You, however, are unable because yours is tradition. Whether you know it or not, your view does come from Calvin but in a watered down and superficial form (Calvin did believe that Jesus went to Hell, but the degree of separation you cling to and what you deny of Christ's work in delivering Creation is foreign to even Calvin).
So, can you provide a passage stating that God was angry with Jesus, that God viewed Jesus as sin (evil, unrighteous, unholy, filth)? Can you provide a passage stating that Jesus experienced the anger of God that the lost will experience at Judgment?
It's a rhetorical question because after all of these months and all of these posts we all know that you cannot. So why don't you just admit what is clearly seen and we can discuss the issues in a Christian manner instead of posting gibberish over and over again?
That was funny.
On a more sincere note, restorative justice is still a type of justice. In terms of divine justice it means that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. It has God, not man, in view.
That's funny too. No one is suggesting that restorative justice is not a kind of justice, but perhaps you would like to explain to us all how removing someone's eye is restorative to him, and how it involves God reconciling the world to Himself.
Sorry, I thought you were joking.
Restorative justice focuses on restoring a status or state of being. Within the context of community it would seek to justly satisfy the want created by an offence while at the same time justly remedying the cause. This does not always mean a state of reconciliation between offended and offender, but in the context of community.
"An eye for an eye" was a just restraint. I am the cause of your loss. You may justly demand that I restore what was lost to you.
In theology restorative justice has in mind not community but God (and by that virtue, perhaps the Church). God does not suffer loss that demands restitution (as PSA assumes) but His justice has His own glory in view.
If you don't understand the nuances between the two I may be able to find a few articles tomorrow. I'm not presently at home.
Again the false dichotomy. It is, of course, both. 'He was pierced for our transgressions' but also, 'The chastisement for our peace was upon Him.......and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' We deserve to be chastised, but instead we have peace. Why, because God laid our sins upon Him and He bore the punishment of them. 'By His stripes we are healed.'
How does removing your eye restore mine?
If you think that is PSA, you don't know what it is. Our sins to not cause God to suffer loss. How could they? It is divine justice that must be satisfied. I keep on quoting Proverbs 17:15, Psalm 7:11 and Romans 3:26, but you take no notice of them.
Last edited:
I am not presenting a dichotomy at all, much less a false one. Christ felt the stripes we deserved as He took upon Himself the consequences of human sin. I am saying that you read scripture through the lens of your tradition and believe Christ, while sinlesd, was punished for committing osinless, This is foreign to Scripture.
I do not believe "an eye for an eye" was literal as evidenced by the Mosaic Law. It was, as I said, a restraint.
I can't justly shoot a looter for taking my television.
Christ did not take on the 'consequences of human sin.' Where's your Scripture for that? It's gobbledegook. 'He Himself bore our sins [not the consequences of them] in His own body on the tree.' As for the rest, you need to correct your spelling so I know what you mean.
It is a restraint, but it is still retribution. Taking your eye will not restore mine.
The Word became flesh, was found in the likeness of sinful flesh, became a curse for us....where do you want to start?
No. Retribution assumes an intent. We are talking about forms of justice, not retribution and restoration.
As you so constantly say to Y1, where's your Scripture? Where do they speak of 'consequences of sin? Yes, He became a curse for us, but not for 'consequences.'
Yes. How is taking the eye from someone who takes someone else's restorative justice? How does it restore anything to the injured party? It doesn't; it's retributive justice.
For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
(I actually did not realize you rejected that Jesus suffered the consequences of sin for us. I can go into more detail when home).
Ibid. (My answer is exactly the same as the last time I answered you).
Retributive justice demands an eye be taken. Period. The offended takes an eye, any eye, and he is good. Or God considers Christ to be unrighteous, to have a righteous worth menstrual rags, and punishes him thereby satisfying his justice.
Once again, where's your Scripture? I want chapter and verse, please. This is what you ask Y1 for; why can't you supply it on demand?
- Status